The United States, European countries, and other major donors must re-evaluate their concerns about the UN’s agency for Palestine refugees in light of the imperative to aid vulnerable populations and take immediate steps to renew funding for UNRWA’s vital humanitarian mission amidst the ongoing crisis in Gaza.
It has been nearly three weeks since Israeli allegations that 12 UNRWA employees (out of around 13,000 in Gaza) were involved in Hamas’ 7 October attack on Israel prompted around 20 countries – including the agency’s three largest donors: the United States, Germany, and the EU – to suspend funding.
UNRWA is the largest aid organisation in Gaza. The contributions being withheld are worth almost half of the agency’s 2024 operating budget. The withdrawal of this financial support undermines the organisation’s ability to pursue its humanitarian mission during the current crisis.
The accusations against the 12 UNRWA employees raise serious concerns about potential violations of humanitarian neutrality. As do further Israeli allegations that around 10% of UNRWA employees in Gaza have ties (through relatives or otherwise) to Hamas, the political and militant group that governs Gaza, or Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another armed group.
What we know about the allegations is based on a six-page summary of an intelligence dossier shared with media organisations. Israel has yet to provide conclusive evidence of the claims. The UN has launched an investigation, and UNRWA is conducting a review to assess whether the agency is doing everything it can to ensure humanitarian neutrality.
In a broader context, however, the Israeli accusations are by no means surprising. The potential affiliations of a relatively small number of UNRWA staff with organisations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad is illustrative of a risk inherent in most international organisations and must be balanced against the vital work such organisations do providing critical services to vulnerable populations in conflict zones.
Inherent risk
Research on international organisations highlights an essential trade-off aid agencies and organisations must make when hiring staff. They can hire international staff, frequently from the Western countries that primarily fund them and host their headquarters. These individuals often possess elite education and credentials, and they are unlikely to possess local political affiliations.
But a reliance on international staff comes at a cost since these workers often have little local knowledge. This can be problematic because local knowledge and access to local networks are immensely important for organisational performance. For instance, at the World Bank, projects led by individuals with local knowledge tend to achieve higher performance.
Drawing workers from local populations is the primary way that international organisations accrue local knowledge, with the goal of promoting effective aid distribution and improved development outcomes. Such advantages have motivated the localisation movement in foreign aid, which aims to address power imbalances and enhance the impact of humanitarian efforts by empowering local communities and organisations.
Embracing this paradigm shift not only contributes to a more nuanced understanding of complex political landscapes but also fosters a sense of ownership and sustainability within the communities being served.
The potential affiliations of a relatively small number of UNRWA staff with organisations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad is illustrative of a risk inherent in most international organisations and must be balanced against the vital work such organisations do providing critical services to vulnerable populations in conflict zones.
However, international organisations also fear that employees with local ties will privilege their political goals over the interests of the organisation. For these reasons, such organisations invest considerable resources in vetting staff and providing training on humanitarian neutrality, especially when they are recruited locally.
Institutions also rotate staff among countries regularly to prevent them from developing sympathy for local populations. This is true of development organisations like the World Bank and USAID as well as the International Monetary Fund.
Yet nearly all aid organisations rely heavily on contractors and staff drawn from target states. International organisations recruit these workers because they recognise the unique knowledge and networks possessed by local staff, who play an essential role in helping such organisations make progress towards their mandates. They also do so for practical reasons – Western staff may be hesitant to accept deployment to dangerous and conflict-prone areas.
Heed the call to resume funding
It is therefore no surprise that UNRWA in Gaza has drawn nearly all of its staff from the local population. Like other organisations, UNRWA has invested heavily in providing neutrality training to its staff, and it shares the names of all its employees with Israel every year.
Given Hamas’ 16-year tenure as the de facto government of Gaza, it is perhaps more surprising that only around 10% of UNRWA staff, per Israeli estimates, have any detectable ties to Hamas.
In many respects, the fact that only 12 of the 13,000 or so workers employed by UNRWA in Gaza have been accused of complicity in the 7 October attacks is a testament to the effectiveness of the organisation’s screening processes.
Dozens of international bodies that understand this dilemma – and what is at stake in aid efforts in Gaza – have called for the continued funding of UNRWA. The United States, European countries, and other donors who have suspended their support would be wise to heed their call.
